SpudFiles

Don't marry any woman older than 25

that makes sense but it makes even more sense not to marry at all

MrCrowley wrote:You could probably turn it on it's head as well and speculate as to what women might put for marrying a man over 25 (or perhaps an equivalent arbitrary value of a different age).

I'm sure such a list exists somewhere

It sort of reminds me of what teenagers go through when they first become attached to a girl except this is creeping over in to adult life. They are incredibly jealous, want her for themselves, and would rather another man never laid his hands on her ever again. And if, when you become enamoured with this girl in your teens, she already has a "history" with other guys you starting thinking things like "You are eating someone else’s cold leftovers".

Don't get me wrong, I love slutty girls in my history I've only once deflowered a virgin - so I have no issue with associating with them. The question is, would you marry one given she is such a liability. Indeed as POLAND mentioned, why marry at all.

Again, 10 years ago I would have agreed with you. A lot of my vitriol comes from the disappointment comparing the romantic notions I was raised with to reality. Not just in terms of the opposite sex but humanity in general. People are c**ts, and you would be a fool to trust them. Of course you have to, because it's impossible to live your life otherwise, but friendships and relationships should be taken with an enormous pinch of salt.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote: Again, 10 years ago I would have agreed with you. A lot of my vitriol comes from the disappointment comparing the romantic notions I was raised with to reality. Not just in terms of the opposite sex but humanity in general. People are c**ts, and you would be a fool to trust them. Of course you have to, because it's impossible to live your life otherwise, but friendships and relationships should be taken with an enormous pinch of salt.

I have not seen truer words spoken on this forum.

Edit: However in regard to your previous note about "sluts," I rather agree with the attitude of Franciso D'Anconia in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

(To paraphrase it: Great men should seek women who are his moral equal and never less)

Edit 2: Here it is: Speech

Francisco D’Anconia wrote:And he cries with despair, because he can feel nothing for the woman he respects, but finds himself in bondage to an irresistible passion for a slut from the gutter.

I resemble that remark.

Great men should seek women who are his moral equal and never less

A truly great man would have no need to seek women.

Great men should seek women who are his moral equal and never less

Atlas Shrugged is from 1957, but I don't think things have changed much since then as far as women and sluttiness is concerned

Ohh damn I was about to write that the author wasn't really very successful and he hadn't seen much action if he suggested to get women who are equal or more moral than you. Anyone who has been at least sort of successful knows that an average woman is a total sl#t when compared with an average man.

So your changes to find a girl who is less slutty and more moral than you are pretty slim actually and even if you find her she's going to be so f###ing boring that it's not worth it

...I said I was about to write that but I've just done some research and found out that Ayn Rand was a woman... LOL not to sound misogynist, but taking advice on women and moral values from a book written by a woman is just ridiculous

Again, 10 years ago I would have agreed with you.

I'm sure I'm well on the way to embracing some thoughts similar to yours as there are a lot of people I would not be able to tolerate in a relationship; it just so happens that I'm heterosexual/a male so that the focus is on women rather than men. There are people I work with, of both genders, that I can be around but would not want to be any closer with. When you want to be closer with a girl, you're generally looking at intimacy or a relationship. With a guy, you're looking for a friend of sorts.

It seems to me that women get it worse when a relationship (or whatever) goes sour compared to when a guy loses a friend. You don't rant about 'men', as a general term, when you have an altercation with a dude. You don't generalise what happened based on gender. Instead, you think of them as a particular type of person (perhaps a particular type of guy) who you loathe and know to avoid from experience. Naturally, there's more than one type of person that each person loathes, some more tolerable than others, that often fit in fairly discrete groups. When sh|t goes south with a girl (not that kind of going south ifyouknowwhatImean), these discrete groups merge and form a general (but inaccurate) picture of women. The same thing happens with roles reversed I'm sure.

Of course, you alluded to this in the very post I'm quoting. My disagreements arise when bad experiences in the past are used as generalisations for an entire gender (see below ) or as a way to promote one gender over the other.

The thing that pisses me off with RadFems is that you can't rant about a particular type of female person without being labelled a misogynist.

Great men should seek women who are his moral equal and never less

Think I had read that speech previously, can't recall where though. Only read half of it just now but to me 'moral equal' doesn't seem quite like the right word, weltanschauung seems like a more accurate concept and jibes with Francisco's sentiments in the second paragraph (specifically:tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy on life). However, I do like to think there is a lot of truth to the idea. Though I think a lot of people are either not conscious of it, ignore it, or are not concerned by it.

an average woman is a total sl#t when compared with an average man.

That's probably because a man isn't called a slut for sleeping with 10 girls in the same year whereas a girl probably would be. That being said, I'm not sure you know what average means.

...I said I was about to write that but I've just done some research and found out that Ayn Rand was a woman...

You hadn't heard of Ayn Rand? She's not just any ol' woman who sat down and wrote a novel, she has a bit more to her name than that (not that I'm a fan, she hasn't really appealed to me).

LOL not to sound misogynist, but taking advice on women and moral values from a book written by a woman is just ridiculous

This discussion could start to get quite philosophical (but it won't because my philosophy, as well as my interest in it, is limited) as I am curious as to your reasoning behind this. I fail to see how a woman would be any less capable of discussing or promoting moral values than a man. There are many avenues of reasoning I could follow but they all depend on your thoughts about morality so it seems wise to stick to the basics rather than rant on about a concept of morality you don't agree with.

That's probably because a man isn't called a slut for sleeping with 10 girls in the same year whereas a girl probably would be. That being said, I'm not sure you know what average means.

1. it's easier for an average woman to get laid than for average man
2. slut/stud double standard implies that women are likely to report less sexual partners while men more sexual partners than there really was

It all comes down to an average woman is sluttier than an average man

I fail to see how a woman would be any less capable of discussing or promoting moral values than a man. There are many avenues of reasoning I could follow but they all depend on your thoughts about morality so it seems wise to stick to the basics rather than rant on about a concept of morality you don't agree with.

Women have very strong tendency to rationalize their behaviour and troubles finding cause - effect relation. You know sort of like I did A (something bad) because I am egocentric and selfish and have no problem admitting it openly. But instead women use all sorts of rationalization to look at things in their own special way. In the end every situation can be summed up as:
1. What I did wasn't bad
2. You made me do it
3. It's your fault
4. You should feel bad about it
Some might be aware that they are fooling themselves but most are not even conscious that the process takes place.

What's more, women lack the ability to look at things from someone else's perspective (unless it's other woman perspective), see things the way they are and be objective. What else can I say ? to promote hypocritical BS such as feminism you have to be hypocritical too.

I think feminism can be compared to the holocaust - in order to do something so evil and unjust you've got to have some sort of special twisted perspective on things and complete lack of empathy.

Many women seem to be plagued with random thoughts and conflicting impulses. Their sense of justice and logic is based on and changes with their bodily chemistry. That makes long term relationships almost unbearable. The man cave becomes a necessity for male survival.

POLAND for president!

All I'll add to his first point is that in evolutionary terms, a man sleeping around loses a couple of mL of genetic material, while a woman risks becoming pregnant, resulting in 9 months of vulnerability and a child to raise - therefore putting a negative social stigma on female promiscuity is seemingly essential for a society to function.

I'll wager that many of those women in your life who you consider not to be slutty have done some very dirty things in the past... or are doing them right now!

Rocco can't buy a pack of smokes.

1. it's easier for an average woman to get laid than for average man

I think I would agree with this, whether or not it is supported by evidence it is a reasonable assumption. However, I fail to see how that makes a woman more slutty than a man on average. In fact, due to social taboo (I would think), it seems that women in western countries have less sexual partners than men. Just because they are able to have sex more often doesn't mean that they do. Nor does that mean they are slutty. If it is indeed true that men have more sexual partners than women, I doubt you'd be calling men slutty.

2. slut/stud double standard implies that women are likely to report less sexual partners while men more sexual partners than there really was

Same as above. While I think there is more reason for women to under-report their sexual relationships and for men to over-report, that could still mean that men and women have a similar number of sexual partners on average. And, again, even if women were slightly ahead I doubt you'd be calling men slutty if the reverse was true.

Now, if there was a complimentary term for women who are quite successful with her sexual escapades, equivalent of 'stud' for men, then I wouldn't mind if you said "women are more of a XXXX than men on average". Because "slutty" is a derogative term, while stud is not, I must object.

In summary: even conceding to all your points and agreeing that women have more sexual partners than men would not make them more slutty than men.

It all comes down to an average woman is sluttier than an average man

Ah, I think that's called circular reasoning.

In the end every situation can be summed up as

Anecdotes and personal experience are all well and good but you can't use them as the sole evidence for an entire gender generalisation. No doubt that what you say does happen, but is it something that is common in all women and also exclusive to all women? If that is the case, does this trait prevent them from rational and logical thinking all of the time? If that is the case, can women ever have a rational or logical thought? If so, does this prevent them from discussing morality in a useful or appropriate manner?

See where I'm going with this? The evidence required to substantiate your claim about female behaviour and rationality is pretty damn high to begin with, let alone the evidence that would be required to substantiate your claim that women can't comment on morality or provide advice about their own gender.

I think I'm going easy on your argument there too, I concede or ignored a lot of other points in favour of brevity. As an example:

but most are not even conscious that the process takes place

I would have suggested that if women are not aware of their cognitive biases or illogical thinking, what's to say that men do not have an equivalent? Following the reasoning behind your argument, we may also have an equivalent glitch in our thinking that women notice but men are unable to notice.

What's more, women lack the ability to look at things from someone else's perspective

Seriously? You have some pretty good research to back this up, do you? What part of their neurology prevents them from doing this? Or is it something to do with their cognition? Are you aware what part of the brain is responsible for this error? Is this a recessive trait, genetic in origin, that is found on the X-chromosome? Or is it a learning disorder that is consequential of some genetic or physiological aspect of the female body?

From what I remember, you have a Masters degree. Even if it is not in science, I'm sure you're aware of how strict academic publishing can be and the type and amount of evidence required to substantiate such massive claims. I'm not sure if you realise how far-reaching your claims are, they would cause a huge stir in the academic community of dozens of disciplines if they were substantiated. You'd be launched to the front page of many major news outlets the world over.

If your hypothesis is something you've experienced every single time you have ever conversed with a women, I can accept that. That's fine by me. However, you can't go from "every women I've talked to does XXXX, therefore every women does XXXX". That claim would be very weak, the only thing required to falsify it would be a single observation of a woman who does not do XXXX. You're welcome to posit about such universals, but I have a feeling you won't be taken too seriously in an academic sense.

Be careful to write "all women I have met are incapable of XXXX" instead of "all women are incapable of XXXX" if you wish to avoid further rants from myself.

I think feminism can be compared to the holocaust - in order to do something so evil and unjust you've got to have some sort of special twisted perspective on things and complete lack of empathy.

Good thing you're not famous, you wouldn't have much of a career after saying that. I've covered this before so I won't go over it again except to say that not all feminism is the same. There are some dangerous feminist groups, in terms of ideology, just as there are extremists with any ideology, but lumping them all together is about as irrational as lumping all liberals with eco-terrorist groups or bigoted militias with libertarians or conservatives.

I do admit that part of the problem is due to the term feminism in the sense that it has been used too broadly so now that it has little meaning. Groups are distancing themselves from the term due to the negative connotations but feminism is still used as a term for gender equality*.

*We've discussed equality before. Some argue that it should extend to try and make all things equal between men and women while the more sensible (IMO) are thinking along the lines of civil rights equality. Just where exactly the fine line between the ridiculous and sensible lies is not known, hence the spectrum of 'feminist' groups and ideologies that exist. Just look at politics, we're still not much closer to the ideal solution after thousands of years of experimenting.

<s>Many</s> women and men seem to be plagued with random thoughts and conflicting impulses. Their sense of justice and logic is based on and changes with their bodily chemistry.

That's actually fairly valid. Justice and logic, among a lot of other things, are indeed affected by bodily chemistry. Random thoughts, conflicting impulses, decision-making affected by biochemistry... these are things that happen to everyone everyday, I don't think I need to provide examples as they are so numerous and obvious.

therefore putting a negative social stigma on female promiscuity is seemingly essential for a society to function

There's so much wrong with this I'm having difficulty deciding where to start. I think it's best to separate the evolutionary argument from the argument for today's functioning of society.

In terms of evolution, a strategy would have existed before the introduction of society and culture. Evolution wouldn't be blind to the cost of excessive reproduction, and we know it hasn't as there are examples in many species that show how birth number of clutch size is limited to improve reproductive success. We're talking about the fundamental goal of an individual: reproduction. Evolution isn't going to have to wait millions of years for humans to evolve to the point where they can construct a society and control the birth rate, genetic traits for this would be under huge selective pressure. The need for society to control this would really be extremely low on the ladder, there are just to many other ways in which evolution has, could, or still does control number of births. I think, if you took your argument to a natural conclusion, you'd be invoking group selection at best. As G.C. Williams said "the principle of adaptation must be recognised at no higher a level than is absolutely necessary. If a phenomenon can be explained as an organic adaptation, it is not permissible to explain it as a biotic adaptation [group selection]".

You're sort of arguing for a societal necessity but with an evolutionary-based premise, hence my wish to separate the two arguments as I'm not sure if you were arguing from an evolutionary point of view or a cultural point of view.

You really should read The Selfish Gene. Most of the book is focused on things like this and it gives a good over-view of important literature by Fisher, Maynard Smith, Hamilton, Trivers, and Williams that deals in large part with reproduction. I can even say that there will be a few juicy bits that will appeal to your views and allow you to 'substantiate' your claims in terms of evolution (even though they're not really applicable for modern behaviour). Dawkins even devotes a good amount of time to the different costs of reproduction for males and females, although he does make the same mistake as you and forget/not consider the prior investment by males in reproduction (which, are also not so applicable today).

As for society, and as we have discussed previously, western culture is neither the norm nor the exception. While we have a stigma attached to female promiscuity, not all cultures do and many cultures vary along the spectrum (middle-eastern culture would be at one extreme). Arguing that negative social stigma is necessary is also saying that women are unable to make the decision themselves. And when you consider that in today's society contraception is so widely available, there is no need for this social stigma at all.

I have a feeling there would be a stronger relationship between paternity and female promiscuity stigma than birth-number and female promiscuity stigma.

I'll wager that many of those women in your life who you consider not to be slutty have done some very dirty things in the past... or are doing them right now!

Same goes for many guys I know as well; this goes back to POLAND's argument. There is no need or reason in this day and age for female promiscuity stigma if it isn't the same for men.

Jesus you became so annoying when you started university

Same goes for many guys I know as well; this goes back to POLAND's argument. There is no need or reason in this day and age for female promiscuity stigma if it isn't the same for men.

Because "slutty" is a derogative term, while stud is not, I must object.

There is a reason for it you know. For men it requires some skill for women it requires none. It has always been like that and it's not that men perpetuate this to oppress women - in fact most slut shaming is done by women as a part of intra-sexual competition.

You really should read The Selfish Gene

Lol no offence but I can't believe you've read it.

therefore putting a negative social stigma on female promiscuity is seemingly essential for a society to function

I agree jsr could have worded it better, but he's right.

From what I remember, you have a Masters degree. Even if it is not in science, I'm sure you're aware of how strict academic publishing can be and the type and amount of evidence required to substantiate such massive claims.

You see I don't enjoy writing two page long posts on the internet as much as you do. Besides my posts are not scientific papers. Have I already mentioned you became very annoying since you started your studies ??

He was annoying far before that, Poland.

MrCrowley wrote:As for society, and as we have discussed previously, western culture is neither the norm nor the exception. While we have a stigma attached to female promiscuity, not all cultures do and many cultures vary along the spectrum (middle-eastern culture would be at one extreme).

Fair enough, though bringing up an obscure African tribe wouldn't really invalidate the point. In advanced societies, the father-mother-children family unit is the norm and premarital sex is frowned upon. If you have evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.

In fact, due to social taboo (I would think), it seems that women in western countries have less sexual partners than men.

My own research suggests otherwise.

Arguing that negative social stigma is necessary is also saying that women are unable to make the decision themselves.

Yes. Yes it is.

And when you consider that in today's society contraception is so widely available, there is no need for this social stigma at all.

Why should I start a family then? Why should I be pressured by society to commit to a woman when she is not similarly obligated? The lack of stigma against female promiscuity has removed my will to contribute to the gene pool.

Again, it boils down to experience. We can argue this ad nauseum, but until you have lived with a woman for more than a couple of months, and do paid work with women, we cannot argue from the same platform.

Still, arguing is good for the environment

Heh, I remember that poster from the Simpsons, inside Nelson's house.

Edit: Didn't know you added a link to that image. Video ftw

And when you consider that in today's society contraception is so widely available, there is no need for this social stigma at all.

I'd say the need for social stigma would disappear only if child alimony was abolished and taking care of children by men was prohibited by law

The mere fact that there contraceptives have become available doesn't change our hardwired instincts. Based on our assumptions no men would have sex with a girl that is on a pill (and he knows it) because the only driving force behind sexual attraction is reproduction. Evolution and basic instincts don't change overnight - that takes thousands of years

He was annoying far before that, Poland.

but not to such extent. Anyway he's just another proof that universities are feminized these days. Look what they've done to him